> : >Darren (>): > : >>While I haven't seen any prior art on this, I'm thinking that it would be > : >>nice for a sense of completeness or parity to have an 0a syntax specific > to > : >>base-4 that complements the 4 that we have now for bases 2,8,16,10. > : > > : >You're joking, right? > : > : No, its a serious idea, just not so conventional. -- Darren Duncan > > The lack of base 4 numbers in Real Life seems to me to justify the > convention. Do you have a use case?
My reaction parallels that of Carl and Larry. Isn't the ":4<222>" syntax sufficient? Unless you're manipulating a lot of bitstreams in pairwise increments, I don't see the point. Orthogonality for its own sake is not very Perlish... -- Mark J. Reed <markjr...@gmail.com>
